The toothbrush in common use, consisting of a rigid handle provided with bristles at one end, has a number of recognized disadvantages including an inability to effectively clean the surfaces of all teeth, particularly those at the rear of the mouth, and a tendency to injure the gums by sharp contacting of the gums by the rigid handle.
Many attempts have been made to design a brush structure to be fixed or held upon the finger of the user. Much greater control and flexibility can be achieved when the brush is manipulated by a finger. However, the known finger brushes have a number of disadvantages. Many prior art finger brushes have a closed end finger sheath which does not adapt well to different finger and fingernail lengths. See e.g., U.S. Pat. No. Des. 97,360 (Stevens).
Another disadvantage of many finger brushes is an inability to retain the brush in proper alignment on the finger during brushing. Prior attempts to overcome this problem include providing: an adhesive strip with overlapping ends, U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,921,590 (Holton) and 2,915,767 (Vaughan); a slit through which the fingertip is inserted, U.S. Pat. No. 2,439,056 (Rathbun); a frusto-conical finger holder which may be slit and formed of a resilient material, U.S. Pat. No. 2,396,548 (Allen); a ribbed expandable loop together with a fingernail cavity, U.S. Pat. No. 3,105,260 (Smith et al.); and an elastomeric tubular member of uniform inner dimension which is deformable to snugly engage the finger, U.S. Pat. No. 4,251,987 (Alam). Many of these devices are undesirable because of their cost and/or they still do not adequately prevent slippage.
Another disadvantage of prior art toothbrushes is that they do not provide an efficient surface for brushing the surfaces of each tooth. Most brushes provide a flat brushing surface which does not effectively contact the contours of the tooth surface. One prior art device, U.S. Pat. No. Des. 97,360 (Stevens), provides an elongated concave brush surface, but this surface would be effective only if aligned vertically with each tooth being brushed. Such positioning is awkward at best, and impossible for teeth in the back of the mouth.
It has also been suggested to shape the brushes of a standard toothbrush to a point to provide a pick for cleaning between the teeth, U.S. Pat. No. 2,155,245 (Sekine). However, this pick has the previously-mentioned disadvantages of brushes on elongated handles and further, no surface is provided for efficiently brushing the surfaces of each tooth.
It has also been suggested to provide a rubber tip on the end of a tongue toothbrush for massaging the gums, and a slit storage compartment and mounting projection for a length of dental floss, U.S. Pat. No. 4,292,705 (Stouffer).